Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Friday January 25, 2008 @08:11PM
from the lawyers-in-a-quick-draw-holster dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Warner Bros. Records is suing SeeqPod, the music search engine, in an attempt to test the limits of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions with a theory of contributory, vicarious and inducement liability. While other services like Last.fm have cut deals with the labels, SeeqPod relied on the DMCA Safe Harbor alone to protect it. According to the complaint [PDF] SeeqPod 'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials, presumably by not buying those filters from label-affiliated companies. Of course, this lawsuit is merely part of a recent trend seeking to move the responsibility for policing copyrights away from the copyright holders and on to third parties."

Go to http://tse.export.gov/ [export.gov] to learn about some of the other things the USA exports - over a trillion dollars in export goods, not counting entertainment. And if it'll make you happy, you can bring up the data showing the $800+B trade imbalance.

On what grounds would you refuse them this power? Surely they should have the right to pursue litigation if they feel they, or their property, is being abused. Whether or not that's intellectual or actual property, though I do agree that they should be treated differently.

Just because Warner is suing Seeqpod doesn't mean that they have any over-arching power to do as they will, regardless of the majority/vocal opinion around the internet; but, and bear in mind I'm not American, so I could easily have this ass-backwards, if this goes to court then either the DMCA Safe Harbour will be found, in some way, inappropriate or the case will enforce the perceived strength of the Safe Harbour provision.

While I'd hope for the former (and coming from the UK I'm envious of the American Fair Use doctrine) I'd accept the risk of the latter, despite the obviously-limited effect that'd have on me. Surely to deny someone, corporation or individual, the right to pursue judicial support would be, if not unconstitutional, but unethical.

Yes, I know the patent trolls and various labels and companies have abused that right, but that right should be protected in order that everyone else can be safe in the knowledge that they can go to the courts for help and restitution. Denying one makes it easier to deny the second. Slippery-slopes and all that...

Despite all of that I do believe that Warners are acting like fools pursuing this, but that's their right.

On what grounds would you refuse them this power? Surely they should have the right to pursue litigation if they feel they, or their property, is being abused. Whether or not that's intellectual or actual property, though I do agree that they should be treated differently.

'Refusing them this power' IS treating them differently. We are in apparent agreement.

BTW, the basic idea is to add this string to a google query: search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=intitle%3Aindex.of+%22mp3%22+%2B%22YOURSONGHERE%

Maybe because the DMCA is an ACTUAL abuse of power, granted by a corrupt government, to keep the rich and the powerful happy? Let's return to the way things were:1. Remove the DMCA2. Remove software patents3. Reduce copyright terms to a maximum of 50 years, no more.

Modern business and the modern US government have overstepped the boundaries put in place by the copyright act as deemed by the founding fathers of the US. Public domain no longer exists, and this was NOT the intention.

Warner has this kind of power because they are a multi-national communications company.They're prolly bigger than Microsoft if you put all the subsidiaries together and counted the till.Unfortunatly for them they specialize in movies and music,two "commodities" whose business model is falling apart due to the evolution and wising up of the human race.We no longer wish to pay to hear the same old stories rehashed ineptly on the same old template.We also no longer wish to pay for music that we are "told" is t

Well,quit wallowing in despair and fight back.Spread the word.Take every opportunity to make war on the industries.F**k em up!Take back privacy and rights by killing the adversary.
yes,HILARIOUS,perhaps shadden freude.

No one is going to stop making movies or music.It just won't be the same asshats doing it.Now there is a level playing field for Artists and craftsmen and its evolving in great leaps.Without the old industry in the way,new smaller distribution systems will prevail.Lampooning may continue unabated.

You mean the party of Feinstein and Boxer? Sorry, on some issues you can make a case that the Democrats are better than the Republicans (though you often need to work at it), but on this one they are, if anything, worse. Granted, it's hard to tell the difference between the parties on this issue. Both sides seem wholly owned (with a few individual exceptions).

This lawsuit is merely part of a recent trend seeking to move the responsibility for policing copyrights away from the copyright holders and on to third parties.

No, this lawsuit is just testing the waters to see if they can overturn pieces of the DMCA that do not work in their favor. If they can turn this provision over then they can fuck Google over too and tap into that endless revenue stream for allowing services like g2p [g2p.org] to exist out there.

If anything, they should be using these sites to take down the offenders' pages and not the sites themselves.

g2p?My work filter flags it as a social engineering site and denies access...never heard of it before.

Never heard of it, either.

Here's what it says:

What does G2P do?-G2P (Google to Person) uses some crafty Google searches to help locate open directories or otherwise shared files. These searches are nothing secret (In fact, take a look at the results, so you can see how it is done. However, it is much easier to remember g2p.org than these complex searches. Really I put this site together to make it easier on me, and then shared it with you.

Why use G2P instead of P2P or BT?-P2P/BT is being monitored -- Using Google we can download a lot more safely. We are simply just following a link -- curious how it leads directly to the file we are looking for. =)

If anything, they should be using these sites to take down the offenders' pages and not the sites themselves.

Y'know, I've often wondered why people haven't been pointing that out. It would seem that for a copyright holder suing the person that points them to an infringer would be just a case of "shooting themselves in the foot". Why wouldn't they want someone to collect pointers to their copyrighted material, and make it easy to go after the infringer?

Maybe Warner is secretly in favor of copyright infringement, and it trying to shut down the search sites so that infringement can continue untracked. If so, there's some interesting economics going on here.

Why wouldn't they want someone to collect pointers to their copyrighted material, and make it easy to go after the infringer?

Because a distribution site/point can close down and move to a new place, new name, new page layout and start up again. If they register with the search engines, they're just as visible as they were before the move. The fact that the site has to change address means that they would lose contact with their audience if it wasn't for the search engines.

No, this lawsuit is just testing the waters to see if they can overturn pieces of the DMCA that do not work in their favor.

No, they're seeking to either (A) Overturn bits of the DMCA that are over-broad or (B) challenge over-interpretations of the DCMA. I do not know the DCMA very well. IANAL. IANfromtheUSA.

BUT

To understand Safe Harbor and its intentions, consider the paper publishing industry. If I write a defamatory newspaper article, who can be sued for it? I can -- I wrote it; the editor probably can too -- he gave it the green light and so effectively put his name against it; but the publishing company is the most likely target. They approved it, they make money based on sales, they're ultimately responsible -- and they have the money to pay the settlement, while neither me nor my editor is likely to be good for the cash.

Who is not sued? The printer. The printer is paid by the page. If it doesn't sell, he doesn't lose out. He has no control or interest in the content of his work -- he is content neutral.

The first rightful beneficiary of Safe Harbor legislation is Bob's Server Shack. Your average host is content neutral and has no editorial control over your site. You pay a flat fee to him directly -- Bob has no real stake in the "saleability" of your site. Bob is the same as the printer.

I don't think Safe Harbor should apply to YouTube, for example. YouTube does not receive a flat fee from the content producers, instead making its money on click-through ads. This means that YouTube's profit is intrinsically linked to the popularity of its content (and, incidentally, the most popular material often infringes copyright). To my mind, this makes YouTube a publisher, not a printer, hence a valid target for law suits. They have chosen not to employ editors. Would a newspaper company be able to publish an edition without an editor and disavow all responsibility for the content? I think not! Why should YouTube get different treatment?

Search starts to get a bit tricky though, but I think we should apply the same content neutrality argument. Most major search engines are largely content neutral. OK, PageRank may have some bias in it, but most potential hits translate to actual hits. You can search for anything you want, and Google/Yahoo/Ask/Altavista will return it. These sites don't exist purely to find illegal material.

SeeqPod is different. SeeqPod is a music search engine, and the only music people search for is illegal stuff. Sure, you may be able to search for legal stuff, but who would bother? Legal MP3s just aren't redistributed much -- if you want them, you go to the band's homepage and download them, and you don't need a music search engine for that.

In my opinion, if the Safe Harbor defence works, then the Safe Harbor law needs to be rewritten.

You're doing the same mistake as the RIAA is doing. You are assuming that people are criminal by default, and you blame the tools instead of the user.A hammer *can* be used to break windows, therefore it should be illegal and not under "safe harbor" provisions.I've used g2p.org, but there's still not a single "unlicenced"/"pirated" bit on my harddrive (I used it to find an obscure and FREE electronica collection where I only remembered part of the name).Regarding YouTube.. Do you have any basis to claim tha

Copyright is not a criminal matter, it's civil -- so I'm not calling anyone a criminal.

A hammer is "content neutral". A hammer is not dedicated to breaking windows. A better example is a lock pick. As I understand it, possession of these is illegal in most US states as "burglar tools" (professional locksmiths excepted). The argument that the owner of the lockpick only uses it to open doors he is legally obliged to do is considered unlikely. There has

Copyright is not a criminal matter, it's civil -- so I'm not calling anyone a criminal.

If you break copyright law, you can go to court and face a fine/jailtime. Whether or not you're calling anyone a criminal is semantics. Which btw. RIAA does not seem to understand. They are comparing pirating with stealing a car/purse/statue of liberty, which I believe are all criminal matters?

A hammer is "content neutral". A hammer is not dedicated to breaking window

It looks like a publisher, it "quacks" like a publisher. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a publisher. YouTube has NO WAY of checking the rights of the uploaded material! If I make a school project and someone rips a copy and uploads to YouTube, how can they know? They can't. It is the persons that are uploading content that have the necessary info to judge whether or not it is LEGAL to upload it to YouTube. Also, screening every single video uploaded to YouTube would take an incredible amount of ma

The only way the internet is going to survive is if rights holders are only allowed to go after the people hosting the content. Sites that catalog it just make enforcement easier and wouldn't be popular if all the search results were taken down. There is a problem with overseas hosts but that is a totally different argument.

The first rightful beneficiary of Safe Harbor legislation is Bob's Server Shack. Your average host is content neutral and has no editorial control over your site. You pay a flat fee to him directly -- Bob has no real stake in the "saleability" of your site. Bob is the same as the printer.

Not true.

Bob's Server Shack gets to charge you extra when your usage goes through the roof due to the popularity of your content -- thus giving them more profit. They actually DO have an interest in having customers who ha

I don't think Safe Harbor should apply to YouTube, for example. YouTube does not receive a flat fee from the content producers, instead making its money on click-through ads. This means that YouTube's profit is intrinsically linked to the popularity of its content (and, incidentally, the most popular material often infringes copyright).

And if the magazines a printer prints are more or less popular has no effect on the revenue stream of the printer?

Maybe this idea will get to the right minds perhaps one of you know who they are and will create awareness. When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.

It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can

When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.

No, you're buying the piece of plastic actually. Remember, not everything to do with creative works falls within the realm of copyright law. Copyright prevents you from lawfully making a copy of the piece of plastic, or from publicly performing it, but copyright does

Who cares about the encoding? Remember, copyright law is a human construct. It does not matter whether it is encoded with one codec or another, lossy or lossless, compressed or uncompressed, digitally or analog -- if, at the end of the day, a human being (either with or without the aid of some device, such as music playing software) perceives it as being the same song, then it's the same song.It's just like how it doesn't matter when you copy a book, if you change the typeface, or you write it in script ins

Finally, also note that the reproduction form of copyright infringement, 1) doesn't care about encoding (meaning that mp3's are straight copies, despite being lossy, and are not derivatives, not that it really matters), and; 2) doesn't care about how much was copied, particularly.

Fair use does actually, and some of those uses clearly involve reproduction. It's one of the impossible things about DRM, if it would be fair use to use a frame or short clip from a movie then it's impossible to allow that while at the same time preventing someone from reassembling the whole movie from the bits. Anyway, kinda off topic because I never heard of anyone trying for a fair use defense like that. You'd probably end up with a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement charge if there is one. If

True, fair use does care about how much of the work was unauthorizedly used and how important those portions were to the work. It's not determinative, however. Sometimes it is fair use even when you copy all or a substantial part of the work, and sometimes it is not fair use where you use only excerpts.

Copyright prevents you from lawfully making a copy of the piece of plastic

You had me until that point. You can make as many copies as you feel like, DISTRIBUTING those copies fall under copyright law. Last time I check, fair use still existed.

It would be nice if owners of copies were allowed to freely download more copies, but that's not how things currently work. As for ethics, copyright and copyright infringement both have nothing to do with ethics in any respect; it's a utilitarian, amoral field.

No actually, I am buying the license to listen to a particular copyrighted work. You may be buying the piece of plastic, not me. And if that were true you are overpaying for the plastic disc. There seems to be some confusion regarding this issue and it needs so be clarified.

No actually, I am buying the license to listen to a particular copyrighted work

Well, that's certainly not how it works in the US, anyway. US copyright law does not cover mere listening to a copyrighted work. Since the copyright holder never has the right to control mere listening, he has no power to issue a license, nor is one required. The closest it comes is that copyright does include public performances (sometimes), and so if you were going to play the CD for a paying audience in a concert hall or somet

The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media. I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.
Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.

That is one of the reasons why downloading (NOT uploading) is legally allowed here in the Netherlands, though this is now under attack. If I'm not mistaking, record labels are also obliged to swap damaged media carriers at a reasonable cost (handling, packaging, shipping, media), but for some awkward reason, this is not mentioned anywhere.

It looks like the Netherlands have it correct then. Yet this conversation brings up another idea. There is a difference in quality of listening between the methods of encoding. MP3 is not that good because it reduces quality but not that noticible of a reduction so that it can be small and compressed.
Record companies good provide high quality downloads becuase that is what I would want. Mp3s are diminshed in quality.

Unless this is a typo, it seems perfectly sensible, if you are not required to use filters (Assuming that "Safe Harbour" applies) at all, that you would certainly not use ineffective ones. If that is all that is available in terms of content filters, then I guess you could go further and say that there is *no* way of filtering content effectively and so it is absurd to take legal action against someone for not doing so.

I guess the best method would be ORAPC (One RIAA Agent Per Computer), they could sit next to you whilst you browse the web and help you avoid infringing.

To answer your first point; No. I'm saying that if these ineffective filters are all that exist then at present, no filtering system exists that would be effective in filtering copyright material. I am not saying that creating one is impossible nor that one cannot be created, I am saying that as it stands the technology does not exist in a viable form.Secondly, about my sense of architecture, clearly it is superior to yours. How would I propose a website would distribute the Agents I suggested? Well I wou

I will deliberately avoid paying for Warner Brothers products next time around.

While we have seen lots of nay-sayers, the fact is that voting with your feet works, and the record companies are hurting because of it.

If we customers keep telling them "we don't want this kind of garbage, and our purchases will reflect our stance", they will listen. They have to listen. The reason they are hurting so badly right now is because they did not listen, and they are finally beginning to realize that.

I was just thinking how strange it is that everyone supports these companies because they somehow can't resist their entertainment products, even while these companies shit all over our legal system in blatant attempts to slow down societal progress in the name of profits.

I know warner brothers can make good movies, but are seeing them worth fucking up our societies legal system?

I really wanted to see I Am Legend, but the price of admission suddenly seems way too high.

I didn't like it if it's any consolation...I won't issue a spoiler (as this is clear in the first 5 min of the movie):Scientist cures cancer by altering the measles virus.+ a couple years and NYC is a ghost town.Smith is a survivor and BadThings happened to other people.Meh, I didn't even finish watching it (not going to spoil any more) as I don't "do" the types of movies that it was.Just hopped over to watch another movie.-nB

"You've not made your complaint clear. One business sues another - where's the problem?"

Well, SeeqPod is a search engine that specializes in letting you download music for free. The big meanies at Warner Brothers would really rather that we all buy the music than get it for free courtesy of SeeqPod. Now, if you were John Q. Slashdotter, on whose side would you be on?

My point was that a small company was apparently following the law, and a big media company did not like what they were doing, and so is trying (yet again) to distort the law in order to guarantee themselves a profit at the expense of the consumer. So... I just buy less of Big Company's products. Works for me.

OK, good reason generally but I don't think it applies here for two reasons. First, the small company is claiming to follow the law, which is a completely different kettle of fish. You say "apparently" but on what basis? It's pretty obvious SeeqPod is a music distribution business, not a search business, so does their Safe Harbor claim have any merit? Their motive is different to Google, their business model is different, their service is most definitely not "neutral" with regards to the content it finds, e

I will deliberately avoid paying for Warner Brothers products next time around.

Why stop at one and just "next time"?

I stopped buying any music or going to theaters altogether (at least for MPAA-member-produced movies) ever since the Sony BMG and the MPAA University Kit deal.

When these people "catch a pirate", they don't simply give them $200 fine and let them go (you know, like a speeding ticket). They extort them for thousands, and, if they resist, sue them for hundreds of thousands.

Be shure ti not buy any products that have anything to do with WB. So nothing with Harry Potter, Batman, Superman, anything from Hamma-Barnera or Tom&Jerry.Obviously do not use any of their afiliated cinema's and do not watch any of the DC comics related things on tv.

The website is talking about some 6600 feature films, 48000 television titles and 14000 animated titles.

And I am not even talking about Time Warner. And the other larger companies are just as bad.

But just so it is out of my own mouth, as it were: this has nothing to do with my "taste". This has to do with not buying from a company that has been determined to rip me off just about every chance it has gotten. My response (and that of many others) is: okay... I will just not buy your products.

Seems pretty simple to me - set up a business (e.g. SeeqPod) that explicitly aims to make money out of online content, and you'll either pay fees or get sued by the owners of that content.

No doubt there will be many and various cunning arguments in this thread as to why this is wrong e.g. if I can't get it for free, I'll take my money elsewhere; I've already got the CD so why should a service that also caters to people without the CD have to pay anything; technology may be a wonderful thing but strangely I also believe it is incapable of ever doing something I don't approve of; etc. While all of these points do actually have merit in various aspects of the whole brave new digital world discussion (please ignore my paraphrasing), they neglect a fundamental law of human nature:

When you seek to make money based upon other people's efforts or property, those other people will find a way to get some or all of your profits.

Corollary: When money is involved, you will never win an argument by stating that the property doesn't actually exist i.e. smart arse comments about "Imaginary Property" won't cut it.

there's nothing inherent about copying that lets them know when someone is doing it to "their" file

You completely miss the point. Catching an individual P2P transfer may be tricky, but setting yourself up as a company, attracting investors, making press releases, and cutting deals with other service providers is bit of a fucking clue, isn't it?

When you seek to make money based upon other people's efforts or property, those other people will find a way to get some or all of your profits.

Interesting argument, considering that the labels have caused many of their biggest acts to go indie. It would appear that the labels themselves are screwing the artists out of money in many instances, and the artists, not the labels, who are trying to "find a way to get some or all of [the] profits."

And how many will learn about the mobile version [seeqpod.com] (that lets you directly access the files rather than locking you into a Flash jail) from this very comment? That sure is an easier way to get mp3s than entering a long special search into Google. Use it while you can, that's my advice.

If they were to filter they would no longer be classifiable as a neutral intermediary.

I'd be really surprised if the MAFIAA wins this, because the suit essentially says "damnit! stop qualifying for these safe harbors! we want you to deliberately gain knowledge of and act upon whats crossing your servers"

At the same time, I also see them winning this on the utter incompetence of judges who spent their lifetime studying law, and pay geeks to come in when they need an instant messenger installed.

OH, did I mention the current agenda of these disgusting companies is people's republic of china style destruction of the internet?